State v. Carr
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Per curiam
The state petitions for reconsideration of our opinion, in which we concluded that the trial court committed plain error in imposing departure sentences based on facts that defendant did not admit and that were not found by a jury. State v. Carr, 203 Or App 179, 124 P3d 1260 (2005). The state argues that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, 130 P3d 780 (2006), the departure sentences were not plainly erroneous. Allowing the state’s petition, we agree. Defendant was convicted after he waived his right to a jury and pleaded guilty. He did not object when,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- State v. GornickOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- Jordan v. SAIF Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. VigilCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.